North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: More Questions of Exchange Points

  • From: Bill Woodcock
  • Date: Sat Apr 06 19:32:24 2002

    >list argues that these distinct subnets are unique exchanges.

Don't anthromophize lists, they don't like it.

No argument is being made.  The property of principal interest to me in
the list is the subnets, so that's what the list is of.  Subnets of
machines that can talk to each other at layer 2.  Many of them overlap in
different ways, but by definition, they don't overlap in subnet terms,
which is what governs layer 3 reachability over layer 2 media.

    > 	only the very brave or very foolish will attempt such
    > 	catagorization.  Posh Bill (norton) clearly points out that
    > 	the value of an exchange, like beauty, lies in the eyes/network
    > 	of the beholder.  local/regional - peering/transit.... the
    > 	key thing is "whats in it for me?"

Right, but everyone categorizes exchanges _for their own set of criteria_.
It's feckless to attempt to argue that anyone's set of criteria are
generally applicable, but it's the intersections of different folks
utility-sets which govern the formation and endurance of exchanges.

    > Difference w/o (significant) distinction.

Not at all.  Read the paper before making pronouncements about it.

    > If -ANY- isp provides transit off the exchange fabric,
    > does that make it a transit exchange?

Of course, for that ISP.

                                -Bill